https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

I have not been able to find a reliable breakdown of the amount of gasoline’s percentage contribution to greenhouse gasses over the amount of time gasoline has been used. The usual breakdowns are “transportation.” Which include diesel. Because that is the denominator you need to answer that question. How do we find out how many gallons of gasoline have been burned? That number will always be blurry. And therefore the complex formula that makes up the number under the ratio line will be blurry too. We can simplify by just saying “a lot.”

Then, we have to quantify the amount of global sea level rise over that same period in order to calculate the number of gallons of input above average into the oceans. That ain’t easy. Due to tides, currents, locally geography, if the local land mass is rising or falling, gravitational effects, centripetal force effects on sea level, abnormalities of the geoid, thermal expansion… But here too, the nominator can be simplified to “a lot”

So the ratio becomes a lot of water has been added to the oceans and we’ve burned a lot of gasoline.

Alot/Alot

That’s the best I can do.

EDIT: Here’s what I found, it doesn’t quite solve all my questions about the math, but:

According to this article, which I have not sourced, 75.6 trillion gallons of water are being added to the oceans each year. (https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/CLIMATECHANGE-GREENLAND-SEALEVELS/010080F60WR/index.html)

According to this government link, the US used 135 billion gallons of gasoline in a year. Still looking for world gasoline consumption. (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline.php)

That, and just on a gut level, the amount of sea level rise on a volumetric comparison verses that one variable would be orders of magnitude larger on the oceanic water side of the ratio.

I did not mention anything about waste from nuclear power plants, but now that you bring it up, please allow me to set you straight.

The daughter nuclei that result from radioactive decay are what is left when a radioactive nucleus emits radiation in an effort to drop into a lower energy state, a relatively low energy process.

The “radioactive wastes” you mention are fission products, a totally different beast, they are the resulting nuclei left over when a fissionable material splits its nucleus into two or more fragments, a much more catastrophic event which releases great energy. Some of the fission products may be radioactive, but not necessarily.

Nuclear fission is a much more energetic process than radio-activity, we use it to generate electric power and in weapons. Radioactivity by itself is dangerous to health, but the energy releases involved are orders of magnitude smaller than fission. They are energetically insignificant in comparison. Fission and radioactivity are not the same thing, they are totally different processes. The fact that you do not know that indicates to me you are totally unqualified to pursue your crackpot theories here.

No, the waste is NOT higher in energy than the original fuel. Its not even close.

I made no comments about anything being harmless because it was natural. You just made that up.

And the concentration I was talking about is the concentration in solution of the species milked from the radioactive cow. It is a purely chemical term as I used it, not a nuclear physics concept.

And no, I am NOT a nuclear expert, but I don’t need to be. I took high school chemistry, which should be all you need to recognize how totally absurd your ideas are. No, radioactivity from nuclear power plants and weapons testing has NOTHING to do with climate change. Climate change is due solely to the increasing opacity of the atmosphere to infrared radiation due to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases. The earth is warming because reflected solar heat cannot escape back into space, NOT because we are adding extra heat with our nuclear technology. There are lots of problems with nukes, but global warming is not one of them. The major cause of AGW is human industrial activity and resource extraction processes. Period. Full Stop.

Why do you insist on inflicting us with this nonsense? Do you really fancy that you are on the verge of a great discovery and that only the pig-headed stubbornness and orthodoxy of the conservative scientific establishment (us unenlightened types, I presume) is preventing you from saving the planet? It is no crime to be ignorant and want to learn, but you have obviously made up your mind already and only come here for validation–our resistance only reinforces your opinion of yourself as a creator of bold and novel ideas, opposed by the forces of convention and reaction. No, go some place where your ideas will be welcome. The web is full of them.

Here in the States it is just a banner to ask for a donation on Wikipedia.